If true (that’s an if), she died of septicemia, not lack of abortion.
Abortions don’t prevent or cure septicemia.
I know I'm gonna get flamed relentlessly (by some,at least) for this but...here goes:
Abortion as a form of birth control,as I'll wager constitute at least 99% of this country's abortions...is perhaps the most despicable crime (and sin) that one can commit against humanity.However,I,never having attended medical school,cannot be certain that there are not some *medical* conditions (as opposed to *psychiatric* conditions) that demand nothing less than an abortion to save the very life of the mother.I think that only qualified physicians can have *any* credibility on that particular question.If,by chance,such conditions *do* exist I'd be inclined to at least consider supporting abortions in those *very limited* circumstances.Of course I'd listen very carefully to arguments made by those who *oppose* abortions in such situations as well.
Agree! Abortion is never necessary... They could have just induced labor, but it sounded like she miscarried anyway. Scalding the baby, chopping him to pieces or shoving scissors into the back of his skull would not have saved his mother’s life. She obviously had other medical issues, but the journalist is using this tragedy to rationalize infanticide.